Our terms: We reserve the right to edit or delete any comment, so please post thoughtfully. We use your email address only to send you a one-time verification message confirming that you posted this comment. We also store your address to allow you to verify using other Web browsers in the future. For more info, see our privacy policy.

Technology News

Even though Apple introduced new products in Q4 2016, the company’s financial slump has continued, with services being the main bright spot in its quarterly earnings report. It’s not exactly doom and gloom, though, since Apple still posted a net profit over $9 billion on revenues of $46.9 billion.

When the Department of Justice suddenly backed out of its court hearing with Apple, it claimed that the FBI had found another way to unlock the iPhone connected with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. But Adam Engst may have been right when he said, “…it might be an indication that the FBI feels that its chances of compelling Apple to create the equivalent of a backdoor are dropping, and is looking for a face-saving way out.” Sarah Jeong, writing for Motherboard, reveals that the judge repeatedly told the attorneys in a pre-hearing conference that the original court order demanding an iPhone backdoor was “unenforceable,” and always had been. We aren’t calling the case over just yet, but signs are good that Apple will prevail in the end.

In breaking news, the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to “vacate” a hearing set for 22 March 2016, saying that an “outside party” has demonstrated a possible method for unlocking the iPhone involved in the San Bernardino terrorist attack, which, if successful, would eliminate the need for assistance from Apple. This postponement feels more like legal maneuvering than some technical breakthrough. While it may not mean the end of the case, it might be an indication that the FBI feels that its chances of compelling Apple to create the equivalent of a backdoor are dropping, and is looking for a face-saving way out.

At Apple’s March event, a stream of Apple executives presented a series of announcements designed to portray the company as working for the customer as never before, starting with customer privacy, protecting the environment, and promoting health, before moving on to the hardware announcements that offer more customer choice.

The conflict between Apple and the FBI has been building since the release of iOS 8, and Bloomberg has now published a behind-the-scenes look at the lead-up to the FBI taking the fight public. Based on interviews with more than a dozen government officials, technology executives, and attorneys, the article provides insight into the thinking that drives each side. It’s well worth a read for anyone tracking the case.

Apple may have support in its fight with the FBI from an unexpected source — a federal statute designed to give law enforcement certain access to telecommunications infrastructure. Susan Crawford, who is a professor at Harvard Law School and served as President Barack Obama’s Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy in 2009, suggests in this Backchannel article that Section 1002 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) explicitly withholds from the government the authority “to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features or system configurations” from any phone manufacturer. Since specific statutes, like CALEA, trump general ones, like the All Writs Act, Crawford believes the FBI will have to go back to Congress if it wants reinterpret what’s allowed by CALEA.

Apple would like to “loop” reporters in on an event to be held 21 March 2016 at 10 AM PDT on Apple’s Infinite Loop campus. However, if you’re out of the invite loop, you can watch a live stream on Apple’s Web site (or on an Apple TV, natch) at that time. Rumored announcements include a smaller iPhone SE, a 9.7-inch iPad Pro, new Apple Watch bands, and software updates for OS X, iOS, tvOS, and watchOS. It’s going to be a long Monday for us.

Unlike late Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who saw his work as activism itself, Jobs’s successor Tim Cook has been outspoken on issues related to civil liberties. Todd Frankel, writing for The Washington Post, traces the origins of Cook’s activist spirit back to his upbringing in rural Alabama, where as a young gay man, Cook encountered segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. Cook often returns to his hometown, but he’s rarely celebrated there.

Apple has yet another ally in its battle with the FBI over iPhone encryption: Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Zeid has advised U.S. authorities to proceed with caution in attacking encryption, warning that the case could have serious global ramifications for human rights. “In order to address a security-related issue related to encryption in one case, the authorities risk unlocking a Pandora’s Box that could have extremely damaging implications for the human rights of many millions of people, including their physical and financial security,” Zeid said. “I recognize this case is far from reaching a conclusion in the U.S. courts, and urge all concerned to look not just at the merits of the case itself but also at its potential wider impact.”

As Apple and the FBI butt heads over encryption in the iPhone, Amazon quietly removed local data encryption from its consumer Fire devices, initially explaining that customers weren’t using it. After backlash from security-conscious Fire users, Amazon quickly reversed course, promising to bring local data encryption back in an update due “this spring.” Since Amazon has filed an amicus brief supporting Apple in its battle with the FBI, it seems most likely that different departments within Amazon weren’t communicating. Until Fire OS is updated, avoid storing confidential information on a Fire device.

Make friends and influence people by sponsoring TidBITS!Put your company and products in front of tens of thousands ofsavvy, committed Apple users who actually buy stuff.More information: <http://tidbits.com/advertising.html>

Some things are so stupid you just can’t let them go. In a court filing, San Bernardino District Attorney Michael Ramos said that “The seized iPhone may contain evidence that can only be found on the seized phone that it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that endangers San Bernardino’s infrastructure.” Clearly, the DA should drop his day job in favor of writing science fiction where “dormant cyber pathogen” might actually mean something. In an interview with Ars Technica, prominent iOS security expert Jonathan Zdziarski said, “This reads as an amicus designed to mislead the courts into acting irrationally in an attempt to manipulate a decision in the FBI’s favor. It offers no evidence whatsoever that the device has, or even might have, malware on it. It offers no evidence that their network was ever compromised. They are essentially saying that a magical unicorn might exist on this phone.”

Cloud backup service Backblaze has once again shared its internal statistics on the reliability of hard drives in its data center. In the cumulative failure data dating back to April 2013, Western Digital’s drives had the highest rate of failure, at around 7 percent, while HGST’s had the lowest, at just over 1 percent. However, when looking at 4 TB drives, which now comprise 75 percent of Backblaze’s drives, Seagate, Toshiba, and Western Digital hover around a 3 percent failure rate. HGST 4 TB drives are again the best, with a failure rate under 1 percent, but Backblaze stopped buying those drives because they were replaced with more expensive models.

In a drug-trafficking case in New York State where the government sought to use the All Writs Act of 1789 to compel Apple to bypass the passcode security on an iPhone, Judge James Orenstein has denied the government’s request. Although this case differs in some ways from the San Bernardino terrorism case in which the FBI is trying to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone, both cases rely on the All Writs Act. Judge Orenstein found that the government failed to establish that the All Writs Act permits the relief it seeks. He also wrote that Apple was not sufficiently close to the criminal conduct and related investigation, that the burden imposed on Apple would be too high, and that it was unclear that the government even needed Apple’s help. In a world where legal precedent is important, Judge Orenstein’s ruling stands to support Apple’s position in other cases, at least until it’s appealed to a higher court.

In the standoff between the FBI and Apple over an iPhone 5C used by one of the assailants in the San Bernardino terrorism case, Apple continues to take its case to the public, but is also lawyering up in preparation for what is certain to be a major court battle.

Apple has now filed its response to the FBI’s court order demanding that the company write a custom version of iOS that would enable the FBI to brute force an iPhone’s passcode. This document is far from being a dry recitation of legal technicalities — instead, it provides a clear, careful, and complete rebuttal of every statement the government has made. It even calls out those government claims that are patently untrue. The Intercept has extracted eight memorable passages everyone should see, and if you have the time, read the full document (linked at the top of The Intercept piece).

The New York Times says an anonymous source close to Apple confirmed that the company is working to block the technical hole that enables the FBI’s request for a custom version of iOS. What’s unusual about this vulnerability is that it could be exploited only by Apple’s iOS engineering team, leading security experts to suggest that Apple must now view itself as a security risk. The only question is how long it will take Apple to implement a level of security that will stymie even its own engineers.

Although the FBI has claimed repeatedly that the request for Apple to help unlock an iPhone used by one of the attackers in the San Bernardino terrorism case is just about one iPhone, Apple has revealed that it has received a number of other requests from law enforcement for similar services, and is fighting the government’s demands in seven of the nine cases. This lends credence to Apple’s argument that the FBI’s larger agenda is to compel the company to bypass iPhone security generally, not just for this one iPhone.

Apple continues to make its case against the FBI, with the latest salvo coming from CEO Tim Cook in a 30-minute interview with ABC News. Cook does a good job explaining away many of the misconceptions in the case. Anyone interested in this topic should listen to the interview, which runs first in an 8-minute abbreviated version, followed by the full-length conversation with ABC’s David Muir.

Theodore J. Boutrous, a high-profile lawyer retained by Apple in its legal battle with the FBI, has said that the company’s defense will focus on how the FBI’s court order attempts to compel Apple to create a new version of iOS. Since the writing of computer code has been recognized as a form of speech, Boutrous will argue that the government is trying to compel speech, something that the U.S. Supreme Court has said violates First Amendment rights. (In the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court ruled that students could not be compelled to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.) In related news, Apple has also hired former Solicitor General Ted Olson for its defense team. Olson served as Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, and his wife Barbara Olson died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, giving him a personal stake in the tension between civil liberties and security.

We’ve coopted our ExtraBITS column this week to focus on developments in the dispute between Apple and the FBI over the agency’s request for Apple to create a tool that would enable brute forcing of iPhone passcodes. Also, Adam introduces the coverage with some thoughts on why this case is so difficult to evaluate.